A rant, in which I criticize a Windows 8 "feature" (part 1 of who knows how many)

Yeah, I can't figure why the tech industry seems hell-bent toward crushing competition. Many of the big players are guilty of various nefarious tactics. Shameful, really.

It's all about greed. Most companies that have share holders want to make as much money as they can to benefit their share holders and to attract new ones. They are constantly trying to increase profits year on year.

What I find infuriating is when one of these companies have a dip in profits they produce a profit warning as if their losing money, but their still a profiting business.

As I said before, it's all about greed today.

[GreyGeek]

Yeah, I can't figure why the tech industry seems hell-bent toward crushing competition. Many of the big players are guilty of various nefarious tactics. Shameful, really.

Ya, it's EVERYWHERE. Somewhere along the road during the last 30 years corporate owners and managers have gotten ruthless and soulless. It's as if the MAFIA has taken over everything and the "made guys" now are nothing but lizard lawyers in suits.

[SteveRiley]

Yeah, I can't figure why the tech industry seems hell-bent toward crushing competition. Many of the big players are guilty of various nefarious tactics. Shameful, really.

[Snowhog]

The real problem with Microsoft et al, is that they do not ascribe to what 'used to be' (yes, a very long time ago) a standard within business -- Leave room for the little guy. Instead, their model is to eliminate competition 'by all means possible'. Illegality doesn't seem to deter them either, but then, it's only illegal if you are caught, tried, and convicted, right?

[SteveRiley]

Oh yeah, I know of those instances. It embarrasses me still, all these many years later. I was specifically asking about MSE blocking Firefox, because that's one I hadn't heard of before.

[Snowhog]

I'm not claiming that they're perfect. But to say that MSE intentionally blocked Firefox because Microsoft was trying to preserve market share? That sounds a bit far-fetched. Happy to see some evidence, though.

This practice was actually done, and was one of the reasons that the Justice Department sued Microsoft many years ago over Internet Explorer. Microsoft 'claimed' that they couldn't fix the issue without crippling the OS itself. They lost. In that case, the assault (by Microsoft) was against Netscape (IIRC). My father, who was running OS/2 at the time, also found, and documented, explicit code that tested for, and 'blocked the rendering' of web sites of users of OS/2.

[SteveRiley]

Um, I worked in Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing Group for eight of the 11 years I was with the company. I know a fair bit about the organization and its politics, not to mention the technology. MSE might not be the most feature-rich antimalware, but that wasn't its design goal. The primary goal was to be light on resources, and this goal was met. Security at scale is very hard to do. I'm not claiming that they're perfect. But to say that MSE intentionally blocked Firefox because Microsoft was trying to preserve market share? That sounds a bit far-fetched. Happy to see some evidence, though.

[Shimapan]

I'm sure that's just the beginning. More companies will be added to the exclusion from ad protection, once they have shoved enough money upon Microsuck's greedy ass - as Facebook and Doubleclick probably already have.

Also, don't let the name "Security Essentials" mislead you into thinking that it provides any actual security. In all the tests I've seen of security software, it always had an absolutely pathetic performance, most times even finishing dead last.
So, what's the point of it then? It's there to do stuff like mark Firefox as malware. Yes, they actually did that a while back in a desperate attempt to keep their Internet Exploder from nosediving any more. After it hailed protests, they eventually removed that again.

[Goeroeboeroe]

You're absolutely right about anti-malware testing reports and snaphosts in time. Every time there's a different 'winner'. That's one of the reasons I think there's not one program that's really better than another (from the serious programs, of course). This month in test A Avast! is the best, and next month in test B Kaspersky is the best.

[SteveRiley]

The only reason I've never tried Security Essentials are my very bad experiences in the past with Defender. But in my experience, and looking at tests, there's not really a difference between paid and free anti-malware for the average user.

The original Defender had a much narrower scope. At its introduction, the third-party anti-malware products were still operating mostly in virus-removal mode, so Defender was designed to work alongside those programs and limited its detection to spyware. For a time, Microsoft offered a subscription service called Windows Live OneCare. Many of us thought that was kind of weird, especially since it included a host firewall that would disable XP's and Vista's built-in firewall but was not as good. Eventually, Security Essentials came out, which combined the anti-virus portion of OneCare with the anti-spyware guts of Defender. Now in Windows 8, MSE becomes Defender (talk about lousy name re-use). But "Defender 8" should not be equated with "Defender Vista" or "Defender 7."

I place no credence in anti-malware testing reports. They are truly snapshots in time, nothing more.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I have two Windows machines only to test sites on. I use the free version of AVG. Have been using that now for years, sometimes Avast. The only reason I've never tried Security Essentials are my very bad experiences in the past with Defender. But in my experience, and looking at tests, there's not really a difference between paid and free anti-malware for the average user.

Completely off topic: I must have removed McAfee and Symantec/Norton hundreds of times from new machines. Most viruses were much easier to remove. Norton was famous for breaking internet connections, especially mail, after every second or third program update. The original Norton was pretty good, until Peter Norton sold everything to Symantec.

[GreyGeek]

....
Microsoft Defender, McAfee and Norton/Symantec: three anti-virus that behaved like malware themselves. Don't know how McAfee and Symantec are at the moment. Well, they had one very good department: marketing.

I have a couple of friends who have to use Windows (for one, his wife INSISTS on it because she "doesn't want to learn a new system"), and because McAfee, Norton, Symantec and the rest behave more like malware themselves I usually recommend "Security Essentials" for two reasons: 1) It's free and regularly updated and, 2) It's just as good as the rest which, considering all the Windows boxes that are running active "protection" and are still becoming zombies in Windows bot farms.

[pauly]

If I remember correctly you can block adds in messenger using the host file. Maybe that is the reason for this.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I should have given the source right away, of course. Here it is:
http://hexus.net/tech/news/software/...-ads-facebook/
The original site is in German, but I guess most people here prefer English.

Yeah, that's right, Microsoft starting with an ax changing it slowly to a kitchen knife. I sometimes still wake up screaming when I've had a bad dream of the first incarnation of Windows Defender, or whatever it was called a few years ago. Don't know how it's working at the moment (apart from changing the hosts file). Microsoft Defender, McAfee and Norton/Symantec: three anti-virus that behaved like malware themselves. Don't know how McAfee and Symantec are at the moment. Well, they had one very good department: marketing.

[SteveRiley]

if Microsoft is doing this by purpose it's so unbelievable stupid, I hardly can believe they do it this way. Lots of people use the hosts file, so it's for sure this is noticed... It's very easy to see if those entries point to 127.0.0.1. If that's the case, there probably is no reason to remove them.

It isn't uncommon for Microsoft to start with a blunt mechanism and then fine tune it later. A future improvement might be indeed to check what the redirection points to.

I found on some sites Google, Yahoo, Twiiter, and some other entries are also removed.

Do you have a source for this?